- Email: [email protected]
Administering agricultural exchanges
Agric. Admin. & Extension 29 (1988) 211-220
Administering Agricultural Exchanges David Reimer Planning and Evaluation Staff, Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Room 358, McGregor Building, 2121 K St, Washington, DC 20250-4300, USA &
Robert Werge Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, Peace Corps, 806 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20526, USA (Received
October
1987; accepted 1 December
1987)
ABSTRACT Exchanges of agricultural scientists are an efSective means of advancing agricultural science and technology .for both developed and developing countries. Three key factors need to be addressed during the planning and administration of agricultural exchanges, as they often determine theJinal success or failure of an agricultral exchange. The three factors essential to a successful exchange program are: (1) clarity and mutual understanding of goals and objectives; (2) understanding in dealing with the unique characteristics of the country involved, its people, and its institutions; and (3) monitoring and feedback ,from participants and other interested parties.
BACKGROUND
Two of the central needsof agricultural researchorganizations are the need to keep abreast of new developments, technologies, or breakthroughs in relevant fields, and the need to develop and expand the horizons of the institution’s scientists. These needsare keenly felt in individual institutions as well as in national research systems. One effective way to meet such 211
Agric. Admin. & Extension 0269-7475/88/$03.50 Ltd, England.
Printed
in Great Britain
0 1988 Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers
212
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
personnel and institutional needs is through the short-term exchange of agricultural scientists. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers international scientific exchange programs through one of its agencies,the Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD). Each bilateral exchangeprogram is administered on the basis of reciprocity, so that benefitsflow in both directions, to the United Statesas well as to the other participating country. The Planning and Evaluation Staff of OICD recently completed a seriesof evaluations of three of USDA’s scientific exchanges. Over 50 US participants, administrators, and program managers from exchange programs with the Soviet Union, China, and West Germany were interviewed during the evaluation process, which utilized both questionnaires and phone and personal interviews to obtain the perspectives of participating agricultural specialists and their administrators. A review of the literature has revealed several studies which have examined exchange programs, most being studies undertaken by sponsoring government agencies.2- 7 The specialists’visits ranged from one to four weeksin length. Information and insights collected from these interviews provided a conceptual framework for assessing the administration of exchange programs for scientists on both an institutional and national basis. FACTORS AFFECTING
THE SUCCESS OF AN EXCHANGE
Participants stressedthree key factors which shaped their experienceand interpretation of the ‘success’of the exchange visit: (1) clarity and mutual understanding of goals and objectives; (2) understanding the unique characteristics of the country, its people, and institutions; and (3) the opportunity to provide feedback to administrators and fellow specialists. Although these findings are based only on the study of three official exchangeprograms, results may be applied to any agricultural organization developing or maintaining systematic international linkages. Goals and objectives
The ability to set clear and understood goals and objectives is the most important factor for determining the successor failure of an exchange. Goal setting helps establish priorities, examine expectations, describe constraints, and focus on desired outcomes of the team and its participants. Clarifying objectives promotes team integration and realistic expectations. Exchanges with clearly established goals and objectives are much more likely to be considered successful by participants, and are
Administering
Agricultural
Exchanges
213
also the most likely to garner maximum results and benefits for their sponsors. In most agricultural exchange programs there are three strata of goals and objectives: the goals of the country program (such as the US-Soviet program or US-Brazil program), the goals of the exchange (such as a Cotton Team traveling to the Soviet Union or a Germplasm Team traveling to Zimbabwe), and the goals of the individual participant (such as a private cotton grower or a USDA agricultural economist). Goals at each of these three levels may be relatively parallel or vary broadly. For instance, a major goal of a country-level program might be to establish co-operative relations between USDA and its counterpart ministry. Within this broad goal, a particular team of US scientists may travel to, say, the Soviet Union to obtain information about current cotton production in that country. Within the team’s goals, individual participants may have somewhat different objectives. For example, a private cotton scientist in the team might be seeking new techniques or technologies applicable to production in the United States. A USDA economist on the same team may be interested in production trends, the level of mechanization, or the administration of State-run agricultural programs. In this case the goals of the program, the exchange visit, and the members of the team differ. In fact, not only do goals vary among the three levels; in this instance, the goals of the participants in the exchange vary. Different goals can lead to conflict between team members. A private sector scientist may be disappointed when he is unable to observe new technologies applicable to his particular commodity, or when he thinks that too much time is being spent in ‘diplomatic’ visits with administrators. To exchange administrators, however, meeting foreign counterparts and establishing contacts and relationships is an essential part of the exchange program. This is especially true in politically sensitive countries such as China and the Soviet Union, where government-to-government contacts are less frequent. If handled well, however, diverse objectives can strengthen exchanges. Participants with different backgrounds and goals can complement rather than hinder the efforts of other members of the exchange team. More common than complaints about other exchange members were comments from participants such as: ‘I was really glad to have the grower along with us, especially when we visited the farms’, or ‘It was good to have that administrator along, he knew who to see when we visited the institutions’. The key to making different goals and objectives work for the benefit of the program is to identify and prioritize the goals of the exchange visit. Each member of the exchange team must know the goals of the program, of the individual exchange, and of the exchange participants. This is probably the
214
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
most crucial element for determining the successor failure of an agricultural exchange. Scientists traveling alone also need to understand how their objectives fit within the larger goals of the exchange program. The best way to clarify and prioritize goalsand objectivesis through a pretravel briefing. This is especiallyimportant when a team of scientistsis being assembledfrom different institutions or from different departments within the same institution. The briefing should be the responsibility of the team leader or program administrator. Ideally, the team should assemblein one location prior to departure. Individual goals should be written out by each participant before the briefing. Further, each member should also understand how his or her individual goals contribute to the goals of the team and the overall goals of the country program. Finally, participants needto understand why other participants are included in the exchangeand what the other participants’ goals are. If meeting together before departure is impossible due to time, travel, or budget constraints, participants should be individually briefed in person, or if that is not possible,by telephone.The entire processcan be handled by the administrator or team leader, or with assistancefrom a separateplanning and evaluation unit. In either case,the successof an exchangevisit hinges on clearly identified and prioritized goals and objectives; a pre-travel briefing accomplishes this effectively. Country
characteristics
A second set of factors for program administrators to consider when sending scientists abroad is the country’s unique characteristics: culture, society, institutions, and the presenceor lack of mutual interests. Scientific exchangesare conducted within a pronounced political and cultural setting. Visits by the same scientists on the same topic to different countries can be markedly different. Differences occur in such areas as: accessto facilities, personnel, and information, time spent in the field, entertainment, and hospitality. One cultural differencewhich must be consideredin exchangeplanning is the relative opennessof the scientific, economic, or political systems of the two countries. Degreeof opennessis a function of perceivedcompetitiveness in particular fields, and exchangesgenerally do not occur in areasconsidered to be very ‘sensitive’ by one country or the other. By the same token, programs with different countries exhibit differing levelsof reciprocal access. For example, US agricultural scientistsin West Germany are usually given a great deal of accessto researchmaterials, personnel,and facilities. The same is true for West German agricultural scientistsvisting the United States.But both the Soviet Union and the United States limit accessto each other’s
Administering
Agricultural
Exchanges
215
scientists, specific geographical regions, and types of information, institutions and technologies.Visits of US and Soviet teams are carefully set up and monitored; variance from the planned scheduleis difficult to arrange in either country. Another cultural difference is the emphasis on hospitality and entertainment and, underlying this, rules on use of government funds and resourcesfor representational purposes.Government scientific institutions in certain countries put more resourcesinto and emphasisupon hospitality accorded to visiting scientists.Two such countries are China and the Soviet Union. US scientists continually remark on the hospitality and friendliness of their hosts. But US hosts of foreign teams, becauseof cultural background and having few official resourcesavailable for carrying out such functions, placecomparatively lessemphasisupon such hospitality. The lack of reciprocity in the scaleof hospitality is a difficulty for US hosts who have previously been guests in the reciprocating country. Political relations also constitute a variable in the implementation of agricultural exchanges.Agricultural exchanges are sometimes viewed as low-risk means for signaling improvements in political relations or disapproval of another country’s action. Bilder has given an interesting discussion of scientific, technical, and cultural exchanges in diplomatic relations.’ For example, the US-Soviet exchange program was recently restarted after being suspended for political reasons (a United States responseto the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). The US-China exchange program was also recently restarted after being suspended over a trade dispute. These cultural and political factors have implications for program administrators and agriculturalists planning exchanges.Goals should not be set too high in terms of obtaining valuable scientific and technical information from countries with relatively closed political systems. However, countries with good political relations with the United Statesand a high level of scientific advancement present excellent opportunities to obtain applicable scientific and technical information. On the other hand, many European countries already have a high level of agricultural interaction with the United States, so some activities may only duplicate what is already being done by other organizations. Exchangeswith countries having less interaction with the United States may therefore provide better opportunities for unique information gathering or establishing new relations. Another variable which must be considered is the presence, or lack thereof, of mutual benefit. In situations where benefits from exchange programs flow primarily in one direction, the exchangeagreementis likely to be modified by the side that perceivesitself as obtaining lessbenefit. Mutual
216
David Reimer, Robert Werge
benefit does not need to be present in every exchange topic, but at a minimum, mutual benefit must exist at the overall program level. In the opinion of program administrators, one of the United States’smost productive exchange programs is with West Germany. In many ways West Germany is similar to the United States. One of the common industrial-environmental problems facing both countries is acid rain. Exchanges between the two countries have been particularly successfulin this area because both countries benefit from research and subsequent scientific advancement. Mutual benefit from this exchangetopic is easy to identify. Both countries can utilize methods and techniquesdevelopedby the other side. With the Soviet Union there is somewhat less area for mutuality in the field of agriculture exchanges.Although many of the crops, livestock, and problems are the same or similar, the political and economic systems of the two countries are radically different. Each side is reluctant to share its technology with the other. This does not mean that the agricultural exchangeprogram is doomed to failure. One way to achievemutual benefit is through a seriesof trade-offs.If little common ground is found on any specific topic, both sides may agree to accommodate exchangesprimarily of interest to the other. The United Statesmay agreeto host a number of exchangeson topics of interest to the Soviets,and the Soviets agreeto host an equivalent number of exchangeson subjects of particular interest to Americans. Often the Soviets are more interestedin obtaining technology and the Americans are more interestedin obtaining germplasm or information. As long asboth sidesseethat they are benefiting from the exchangeprogram as a whole, it is not necessaryfor each side to receive mutual benefit from each topic or each exchange. Monitoring and evaluation One of the most effective means of assuring a viable exchangeprogram is through monitoring and feedback. Monitoring can focus both on administrative issues of exchangesand on the impacts or benefits of the exchangeprogram. Administrative issuesinclude such items as: Did the agriculturalist visit every stop on his itinerary? Were the groper people there to seehim? Was he given accessto the information he needed?Was the lodging satisfactory? Were there any transportation, customs, or visa problems? These questions are straightforward and can be answered either at a debriefing or more informally through a visit or telephone conversation. Some program officers are quite eager for feedback on this aspect of the exchangevisit, and if problems have arisen, these issuesare relatively easy
Administering
Agricultural
Exchanges
211
for program officers to address.On the other hand, it is useful to have an evaluator or third person occasionally handle the debriefings and post-trip interviews. Participants are more open and more likely to discuss administrative problems with someoneother than the program officer who arranged their trip. Exchange participants are often hesitant to discuss minor problems for fear of being perceived as ungrateful or not a ‘team player’. It is also a good idea to hold the debriefings or interviews as soon as possibleafter the scientist has returned from the exchange,ideally within one or two days. That way, impressions, ideas, and suggestionsare still fresh. A secondarea for monitoring is that of results or benefits.Identification of benefitsand results is extremely important in order to gaugethe value of the exchange program and, if necessary, build political support or make changes.Benefits can be grouped into three categories: individual benefits, institutional benefits, and benefits to the agricultural community. One benefit to the larger agricultural community is accessto unique national resourcesof other countries. These include natural environments, laboratories, scientific manpower, and animal and plant materials. Collection and utilization of such resources is an important element in exchangesbetweencountries. Countries with different levels of agricultural development focus exchangeson different resource base objectives. Thus, while scientists from a developing country tend to try to tap into new technologiesand training from the United States,US scientistsmay be more interested in biological control agents and germplasm in the developing country. Providing mutually beneficial and ongoing accessto resourcesnot readily available to the national agricultural community is an important benefit from exchangeprograms. Another benefit to the agricultural community is the transfer and diffusion of new technologies.This occurs more commonly from exchanges betweencountries at roughly the same level of development in the relevant field. Different countries specializein different scientific areas.Scientists in various countries also view problems and technology differently. Exchanges can quicken the flow of new ideas and new technologies. Benefits also accrue on an institutional level. One means is through the establishment of institutional linkages between similar agencies,centers,or universities. Exchanges based on continuity and built upon the work of previous exchangesare often the most successful. Long-term, continual relations build trust between individuals, institutions, and governments which permits an increased sharing of ideas and information. Such is the casewith the United States-West German agricultural exchangeprogram, one of the longest, continual exchangeprograms administered by the US Department of Agriculture. Scientists participating in this program have indicated that they are able to accomplish more with West German
218
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
counterparts simply becauseof the trust and mutual respectbuilt over time through continual institutional relationships. By contrast, during the suspension of the US-Soviet exchange program, institutions have been reorganized and people have been reassigned,especially on the Soviet side. The element of continuity is lacking and its effect is felt through the uncertain nature of the exchangerelationship. The third area of benefit occurs on an individual level. Probably the most overlooked area is that of the impact on the individual. Individuals benefit from exchangesin a variety of ways. They obtain an awarenessof what is happening worldwide in their particular area of specialization. Exchange visits provide a source of encouragement and renewal for those agriculturalists who feel they are alone in struggling with a particular researchtheory or new idea. Also, such exchangesgive scientistsa privileged access to information, unavailable to them in normal circumstances. Exchangescan prevent establishedresearchersor scientists from stagnating in their own environments, or can provide relatively new staff members with an excellent training experience. Information obtained through exchangesis usually timely and up to date. Those receiving it do not have to wait months or years for information to filter down through journals or conferences.Participants study and observe new techniques and methods as they are being developed. Most scientists who were interviewed said they especially benefit from the enlightening and broadening aspects of their work and travel overseas.In fact, from a participant’s point of view, this is one of the most important benefitsof an exchange.In the long run, the institution and national research system reaps the benefits of the individual scientist’s growth in experience. Individuals who place their work in a larger global perspective are often more highly motivated and more productive, according to their supervisors. This is especially true for individuals who can visit and interact in person with those overseasstruggling with similar problems. And, of course, any information or technology obtained by an individual, if properly disseminated, benefits more than just that individual. How, then, can one evaluate outcomes of exchangevisits? It is not easy. Interviewing participants is one way, but not the only way. Participants view exchangesfrom their own unique perspectiveas participants. It is necessary to interview program officers, supervisors, heads of international divisions or agencies,and other reserachers,in addition to reading trip reports and any articles or papers that may have beenwritten as a result of the exchange experience. Unlike debriefings at the end of an exchange,interviews of participants concerning outcomes and benefits are best carried out six months to a year after their return and then again in three to five years. The lapse of time
Administering Agricultural Exchanges
219
allows the participant to judge the relevancy of the exchangeand subsequent activities in a longer and more realistic framework. It also enables the evaluator to assesslong-term impacts of the exchangevisit. Many times a participant will have grand plans for incorporating results from the exchangeinto his or her work but will neverfollow through with thoseplans. For this reason it is necessaryto interview participants severalyears after the exchange, to see what really happened, not just what was planned. Evaluators can seeif the value of the information or resourceshas changed, either increased or decreased,over time.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
Agricultural exchangesare an effective means of diffusing technology and advancing agriculture for both developed and developing countries, especiallyin thesetimes when researchdollars are thinly stretched.Certainly they should be continued and, where possible,expanded.In order to obtain maximum benefit for the time and resources invested in planning and administering exchangesor exchange programs, program managers and agriculturalists should remember the following three key sets of factors when planning exchangevisits: (1) clear setting of goals and objectives, and understanding of the sameby involved individuals is essentialfor productive exchanges;(2) the unique characteristics of each country in terms of its people and culture exert a very strong influence on the outcomes of an exchange;(3)monitoring and feedback on the program is essentialto gauge the effectivenessof the program in terms of administration as well as longterm impact. If administrators and agriculturalists deal with these issues competently and effectively, exchange visits can be a useful means of developing and advancing agriculture worldwide.
REFERENCES 1. Bilder, R. B., Managing the Risks of International Agreement. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1981. 2. Carpenter, A., Report on the Post-Grant Activities of a Group of FulbrightHays Scholars to Latin America, 197&75. Council for International Exchange of Scholars, Washington, DC, 1978. 3. Lemke, W. H., Hull, W. F. & Ting-Ku Houang, R., Retrospective Study of the Impact of a Foreign Sojourn: The Senior Fulbright-Hays Program. International Committee for the Study of Educational Exchange. University of California at Santa Barbara, 1977.
220
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
4. Suttmeier, R. P., U.S.-PRC ScientiJic Cooperation: An Assessment of the First Two Years. Department of State, Washington, DC, 1981. 5. Sweet, C. F., The Senior Fulbright Program and Its Domestic Impact. Department of State, Washington, DC, 1973. 6. United States Information Agency, USJCentral American Exchanges. Washington, DC, 1983. 7. Wilson Center, U.S.-Soviet Exchanges: A Conference Report. Washington, DC, 1985.
Administering Agricultural Exchanges David Reimer Planning and Evaluation Staff, Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Room 358, McGregor Building, 2121 K St, Washington, DC 20250-4300, USA &
Robert Werge Office of Planning and Policy Analysis, Peace Corps, 806 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20526, USA (Received
October
1987; accepted 1 December
1987)
ABSTRACT Exchanges of agricultural scientists are an efSective means of advancing agricultural science and technology .for both developed and developing countries. Three key factors need to be addressed during the planning and administration of agricultural exchanges, as they often determine theJinal success or failure of an agricultral exchange. The three factors essential to a successful exchange program are: (1) clarity and mutual understanding of goals and objectives; (2) understanding in dealing with the unique characteristics of the country involved, its people, and its institutions; and (3) monitoring and feedback ,from participants and other interested parties.
BACKGROUND
Two of the central needsof agricultural researchorganizations are the need to keep abreast of new developments, technologies, or breakthroughs in relevant fields, and the need to develop and expand the horizons of the institution’s scientists. These needsare keenly felt in individual institutions as well as in national research systems. One effective way to meet such 211
Agric. Admin. & Extension 0269-7475/88/$03.50 Ltd, England.
Printed
in Great Britain
0 1988 Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers
212
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
personnel and institutional needs is through the short-term exchange of agricultural scientists. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers international scientific exchange programs through one of its agencies,the Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD). Each bilateral exchangeprogram is administered on the basis of reciprocity, so that benefitsflow in both directions, to the United Statesas well as to the other participating country. The Planning and Evaluation Staff of OICD recently completed a seriesof evaluations of three of USDA’s scientific exchanges. Over 50 US participants, administrators, and program managers from exchange programs with the Soviet Union, China, and West Germany were interviewed during the evaluation process, which utilized both questionnaires and phone and personal interviews to obtain the perspectives of participating agricultural specialists and their administrators. A review of the literature has revealed several studies which have examined exchange programs, most being studies undertaken by sponsoring government agencies.2- 7 The specialists’visits ranged from one to four weeksin length. Information and insights collected from these interviews provided a conceptual framework for assessing the administration of exchange programs for scientists on both an institutional and national basis. FACTORS AFFECTING
THE SUCCESS OF AN EXCHANGE
Participants stressedthree key factors which shaped their experienceand interpretation of the ‘success’of the exchange visit: (1) clarity and mutual understanding of goals and objectives; (2) understanding the unique characteristics of the country, its people, and institutions; and (3) the opportunity to provide feedback to administrators and fellow specialists. Although these findings are based only on the study of three official exchangeprograms, results may be applied to any agricultural organization developing or maintaining systematic international linkages. Goals and objectives
The ability to set clear and understood goals and objectives is the most important factor for determining the successor failure of an exchange. Goal setting helps establish priorities, examine expectations, describe constraints, and focus on desired outcomes of the team and its participants. Clarifying objectives promotes team integration and realistic expectations. Exchanges with clearly established goals and objectives are much more likely to be considered successful by participants, and are
Administering
Agricultural
Exchanges
213
also the most likely to garner maximum results and benefits for their sponsors. In most agricultural exchange programs there are three strata of goals and objectives: the goals of the country program (such as the US-Soviet program or US-Brazil program), the goals of the exchange (such as a Cotton Team traveling to the Soviet Union or a Germplasm Team traveling to Zimbabwe), and the goals of the individual participant (such as a private cotton grower or a USDA agricultural economist). Goals at each of these three levels may be relatively parallel or vary broadly. For instance, a major goal of a country-level program might be to establish co-operative relations between USDA and its counterpart ministry. Within this broad goal, a particular team of US scientists may travel to, say, the Soviet Union to obtain information about current cotton production in that country. Within the team’s goals, individual participants may have somewhat different objectives. For example, a private cotton scientist in the team might be seeking new techniques or technologies applicable to production in the United States. A USDA economist on the same team may be interested in production trends, the level of mechanization, or the administration of State-run agricultural programs. In this case the goals of the program, the exchange visit, and the members of the team differ. In fact, not only do goals vary among the three levels; in this instance, the goals of the participants in the exchange vary. Different goals can lead to conflict between team members. A private sector scientist may be disappointed when he is unable to observe new technologies applicable to his particular commodity, or when he thinks that too much time is being spent in ‘diplomatic’ visits with administrators. To exchange administrators, however, meeting foreign counterparts and establishing contacts and relationships is an essential part of the exchange program. This is especially true in politically sensitive countries such as China and the Soviet Union, where government-to-government contacts are less frequent. If handled well, however, diverse objectives can strengthen exchanges. Participants with different backgrounds and goals can complement rather than hinder the efforts of other members of the exchange team. More common than complaints about other exchange members were comments from participants such as: ‘I was really glad to have the grower along with us, especially when we visited the farms’, or ‘It was good to have that administrator along, he knew who to see when we visited the institutions’. The key to making different goals and objectives work for the benefit of the program is to identify and prioritize the goals of the exchange visit. Each member of the exchange team must know the goals of the program, of the individual exchange, and of the exchange participants. This is probably the
214
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
most crucial element for determining the successor failure of an agricultural exchange. Scientists traveling alone also need to understand how their objectives fit within the larger goals of the exchange program. The best way to clarify and prioritize goalsand objectivesis through a pretravel briefing. This is especiallyimportant when a team of scientistsis being assembledfrom different institutions or from different departments within the same institution. The briefing should be the responsibility of the team leader or program administrator. Ideally, the team should assemblein one location prior to departure. Individual goals should be written out by each participant before the briefing. Further, each member should also understand how his or her individual goals contribute to the goals of the team and the overall goals of the country program. Finally, participants needto understand why other participants are included in the exchangeand what the other participants’ goals are. If meeting together before departure is impossible due to time, travel, or budget constraints, participants should be individually briefed in person, or if that is not possible,by telephone.The entire processcan be handled by the administrator or team leader, or with assistancefrom a separateplanning and evaluation unit. In either case,the successof an exchangevisit hinges on clearly identified and prioritized goals and objectives; a pre-travel briefing accomplishes this effectively. Country
characteristics
A second set of factors for program administrators to consider when sending scientists abroad is the country’s unique characteristics: culture, society, institutions, and the presenceor lack of mutual interests. Scientific exchangesare conducted within a pronounced political and cultural setting. Visits by the same scientists on the same topic to different countries can be markedly different. Differences occur in such areas as: accessto facilities, personnel, and information, time spent in the field, entertainment, and hospitality. One cultural differencewhich must be consideredin exchangeplanning is the relative opennessof the scientific, economic, or political systems of the two countries. Degreeof opennessis a function of perceivedcompetitiveness in particular fields, and exchangesgenerally do not occur in areasconsidered to be very ‘sensitive’ by one country or the other. By the same token, programs with different countries exhibit differing levelsof reciprocal access. For example, US agricultural scientistsin West Germany are usually given a great deal of accessto researchmaterials, personnel,and facilities. The same is true for West German agricultural scientistsvisting the United States.But both the Soviet Union and the United States limit accessto each other’s
Administering
Agricultural
Exchanges
215
scientists, specific geographical regions, and types of information, institutions and technologies.Visits of US and Soviet teams are carefully set up and monitored; variance from the planned scheduleis difficult to arrange in either country. Another cultural difference is the emphasis on hospitality and entertainment and, underlying this, rules on use of government funds and resourcesfor representational purposes.Government scientific institutions in certain countries put more resourcesinto and emphasisupon hospitality accorded to visiting scientists.Two such countries are China and the Soviet Union. US scientists continually remark on the hospitality and friendliness of their hosts. But US hosts of foreign teams, becauseof cultural background and having few official resourcesavailable for carrying out such functions, placecomparatively lessemphasisupon such hospitality. The lack of reciprocity in the scaleof hospitality is a difficulty for US hosts who have previously been guests in the reciprocating country. Political relations also constitute a variable in the implementation of agricultural exchanges.Agricultural exchanges are sometimes viewed as low-risk means for signaling improvements in political relations or disapproval of another country’s action. Bilder has given an interesting discussion of scientific, technical, and cultural exchanges in diplomatic relations.’ For example, the US-Soviet exchange program was recently restarted after being suspended for political reasons (a United States responseto the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan). The US-China exchange program was also recently restarted after being suspended over a trade dispute. These cultural and political factors have implications for program administrators and agriculturalists planning exchanges.Goals should not be set too high in terms of obtaining valuable scientific and technical information from countries with relatively closed political systems. However, countries with good political relations with the United Statesand a high level of scientific advancement present excellent opportunities to obtain applicable scientific and technical information. On the other hand, many European countries already have a high level of agricultural interaction with the United States, so some activities may only duplicate what is already being done by other organizations. Exchangeswith countries having less interaction with the United States may therefore provide better opportunities for unique information gathering or establishing new relations. Another variable which must be considered is the presence, or lack thereof, of mutual benefit. In situations where benefits from exchange programs flow primarily in one direction, the exchangeagreementis likely to be modified by the side that perceivesitself as obtaining lessbenefit. Mutual
216
David Reimer, Robert Werge
benefit does not need to be present in every exchange topic, but at a minimum, mutual benefit must exist at the overall program level. In the opinion of program administrators, one of the United States’smost productive exchange programs is with West Germany. In many ways West Germany is similar to the United States. One of the common industrial-environmental problems facing both countries is acid rain. Exchanges between the two countries have been particularly successfulin this area because both countries benefit from research and subsequent scientific advancement. Mutual benefit from this exchangetopic is easy to identify. Both countries can utilize methods and techniquesdevelopedby the other side. With the Soviet Union there is somewhat less area for mutuality in the field of agriculture exchanges.Although many of the crops, livestock, and problems are the same or similar, the political and economic systems of the two countries are radically different. Each side is reluctant to share its technology with the other. This does not mean that the agricultural exchangeprogram is doomed to failure. One way to achievemutual benefit is through a seriesof trade-offs.If little common ground is found on any specific topic, both sides may agree to accommodate exchangesprimarily of interest to the other. The United Statesmay agreeto host a number of exchangeson topics of interest to the Soviets,and the Soviets agreeto host an equivalent number of exchangeson subjects of particular interest to Americans. Often the Soviets are more interestedin obtaining technology and the Americans are more interestedin obtaining germplasm or information. As long asboth sidesseethat they are benefiting from the exchangeprogram as a whole, it is not necessaryfor each side to receive mutual benefit from each topic or each exchange. Monitoring and evaluation One of the most effective means of assuring a viable exchangeprogram is through monitoring and feedback. Monitoring can focus both on administrative issues of exchangesand on the impacts or benefits of the exchangeprogram. Administrative issuesinclude such items as: Did the agriculturalist visit every stop on his itinerary? Were the groper people there to seehim? Was he given accessto the information he needed?Was the lodging satisfactory? Were there any transportation, customs, or visa problems? These questions are straightforward and can be answered either at a debriefing or more informally through a visit or telephone conversation. Some program officers are quite eager for feedback on this aspect of the exchangevisit, and if problems have arisen, these issuesare relatively easy
Administering
Agricultural
Exchanges
211
for program officers to address.On the other hand, it is useful to have an evaluator or third person occasionally handle the debriefings and post-trip interviews. Participants are more open and more likely to discuss administrative problems with someoneother than the program officer who arranged their trip. Exchange participants are often hesitant to discuss minor problems for fear of being perceived as ungrateful or not a ‘team player’. It is also a good idea to hold the debriefings or interviews as soon as possibleafter the scientist has returned from the exchange,ideally within one or two days. That way, impressions, ideas, and suggestionsare still fresh. A secondarea for monitoring is that of results or benefits.Identification of benefitsand results is extremely important in order to gaugethe value of the exchange program and, if necessary, build political support or make changes.Benefits can be grouped into three categories: individual benefits, institutional benefits, and benefits to the agricultural community. One benefit to the larger agricultural community is accessto unique national resourcesof other countries. These include natural environments, laboratories, scientific manpower, and animal and plant materials. Collection and utilization of such resources is an important element in exchangesbetweencountries. Countries with different levels of agricultural development focus exchangeson different resource base objectives. Thus, while scientists from a developing country tend to try to tap into new technologiesand training from the United States,US scientistsmay be more interested in biological control agents and germplasm in the developing country. Providing mutually beneficial and ongoing accessto resourcesnot readily available to the national agricultural community is an important benefit from exchangeprograms. Another benefit to the agricultural community is the transfer and diffusion of new technologies.This occurs more commonly from exchanges betweencountries at roughly the same level of development in the relevant field. Different countries specializein different scientific areas.Scientists in various countries also view problems and technology differently. Exchanges can quicken the flow of new ideas and new technologies. Benefits also accrue on an institutional level. One means is through the establishment of institutional linkages between similar agencies,centers,or universities. Exchanges based on continuity and built upon the work of previous exchangesare often the most successful. Long-term, continual relations build trust between individuals, institutions, and governments which permits an increased sharing of ideas and information. Such is the casewith the United States-West German agricultural exchangeprogram, one of the longest, continual exchangeprograms administered by the US Department of Agriculture. Scientists participating in this program have indicated that they are able to accomplish more with West German
218
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
counterparts simply becauseof the trust and mutual respectbuilt over time through continual institutional relationships. By contrast, during the suspension of the US-Soviet exchange program, institutions have been reorganized and people have been reassigned,especially on the Soviet side. The element of continuity is lacking and its effect is felt through the uncertain nature of the exchangerelationship. The third area of benefit occurs on an individual level. Probably the most overlooked area is that of the impact on the individual. Individuals benefit from exchangesin a variety of ways. They obtain an awarenessof what is happening worldwide in their particular area of specialization. Exchange visits provide a source of encouragement and renewal for those agriculturalists who feel they are alone in struggling with a particular researchtheory or new idea. Also, such exchangesgive scientistsa privileged access to information, unavailable to them in normal circumstances. Exchangescan prevent establishedresearchersor scientists from stagnating in their own environments, or can provide relatively new staff members with an excellent training experience. Information obtained through exchangesis usually timely and up to date. Those receiving it do not have to wait months or years for information to filter down through journals or conferences.Participants study and observe new techniques and methods as they are being developed. Most scientists who were interviewed said they especially benefit from the enlightening and broadening aspects of their work and travel overseas.In fact, from a participant’s point of view, this is one of the most important benefitsof an exchange.In the long run, the institution and national research system reaps the benefits of the individual scientist’s growth in experience. Individuals who place their work in a larger global perspective are often more highly motivated and more productive, according to their supervisors. This is especially true for individuals who can visit and interact in person with those overseasstruggling with similar problems. And, of course, any information or technology obtained by an individual, if properly disseminated, benefits more than just that individual. How, then, can one evaluate outcomes of exchangevisits? It is not easy. Interviewing participants is one way, but not the only way. Participants view exchangesfrom their own unique perspectiveas participants. It is necessary to interview program officers, supervisors, heads of international divisions or agencies,and other reserachers,in addition to reading trip reports and any articles or papers that may have beenwritten as a result of the exchange experience. Unlike debriefings at the end of an exchange,interviews of participants concerning outcomes and benefits are best carried out six months to a year after their return and then again in three to five years. The lapse of time
Administering Agricultural Exchanges
219
allows the participant to judge the relevancy of the exchangeand subsequent activities in a longer and more realistic framework. It also enables the evaluator to assesslong-term impacts of the exchangevisit. Many times a participant will have grand plans for incorporating results from the exchangeinto his or her work but will neverfollow through with thoseplans. For this reason it is necessaryto interview participants severalyears after the exchange, to see what really happened, not just what was planned. Evaluators can seeif the value of the information or resourceshas changed, either increased or decreased,over time.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS
Agricultural exchangesare an effective means of diffusing technology and advancing agriculture for both developed and developing countries, especiallyin thesetimes when researchdollars are thinly stretched.Certainly they should be continued and, where possible,expanded.In order to obtain maximum benefit for the time and resources invested in planning and administering exchangesor exchange programs, program managers and agriculturalists should remember the following three key sets of factors when planning exchangevisits: (1) clear setting of goals and objectives, and understanding of the sameby involved individuals is essentialfor productive exchanges;(2) the unique characteristics of each country in terms of its people and culture exert a very strong influence on the outcomes of an exchange;(3)monitoring and feedback on the program is essentialto gauge the effectivenessof the program in terms of administration as well as longterm impact. If administrators and agriculturalists deal with these issues competently and effectively, exchange visits can be a useful means of developing and advancing agriculture worldwide.
REFERENCES 1. Bilder, R. B., Managing the Risks of International Agreement. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1981. 2. Carpenter, A., Report on the Post-Grant Activities of a Group of FulbrightHays Scholars to Latin America, 197&75. Council for International Exchange of Scholars, Washington, DC, 1978. 3. Lemke, W. H., Hull, W. F. & Ting-Ku Houang, R., Retrospective Study of the Impact of a Foreign Sojourn: The Senior Fulbright-Hays Program. International Committee for the Study of Educational Exchange. University of California at Santa Barbara, 1977.
220
David Reimer, Robert
Werge
4. Suttmeier, R. P., U.S.-PRC ScientiJic Cooperation: An Assessment of the First Two Years. Department of State, Washington, DC, 1981. 5. Sweet, C. F., The Senior Fulbright Program and Its Domestic Impact. Department of State, Washington, DC, 1973. 6. United States Information Agency, USJCentral American Exchanges. Washington, DC, 1983. 7. Wilson Center, U.S.-Soviet Exchanges: A Conference Report. Washington, DC, 1985.